Members of the ruling coalition, led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, have sought to frame the stance of President Andrzej Duda as a political move surrounding the 2024 budget. The budget included PLN 3 billion for public media, and critics claim the president blocked teachers’ pay raises. The question remains: what is the underlying truth?
READ MORE: President vetoes budget bill! There can be no permission for this, given the blatant violation of the Constitution. A new project is coming
Presidential veto
On Saturday evening, the president vetoed the 2024 budget law, which contained PLN 3 billion for the public media sector.
The president stated that permission could not be granted due to what he described as a blatant violation of the Constitution and the principles of a democratic constitutional state.
He indicated that he would submit his own budget proposal to the Sejm after Christmas, which would include provisions for teacher pay increases and other expenditures planned in the budget law.
Tusk’s manipulations
Prime Minister Donald Tusk responded by criticizing the president, accusing him of diverting funds from kindergarten and early education. In his view, the veto redirected resources away from teachers, while also scrapping what he called the “hearth tax,” a policy he argued enabled broader pay increases for heads of state enterprises and agencies.
Several politicians from the ruling coalition echoed similar sentiments, arguing that the president’s move harmed teachers on the eve of Christmas and reduced funds that would otherwise be available to people across the country.
Social media posts from party figures reflected the tone of the debate, with criticisms that the veto was politically motivated and that it directly impacted the wallets of Polish families. The exchanges underscored the sharp partisan divide over how public funds should be allocated in the budget.
comments by opponents of the president featured strong language about accountability and political maneuvering, contrasting the president’s stance with the parties in power over the past eight years. Some posts framed the president’s actions as a form of retaliation, while others called for greater clarity and adherence to democratic norms.
What is the truth?
Representatives from Law and Justice challenged the claims circulating about the budget and wage increases. They stated that the president had promised to secure raises for teachers and would present a bill to ensure those increases. They argued that the budget law, which does not fall under the president’s veto power, still contains provisions about teacher pay, and that the government had bundled TVP funding with other measures, including wage rises.
Critics of the ruling coalition argued that public promises were made during the campaign but not fulfilled, and that the public media system had seen controversial changes. They contended that the budget process involved complex negotiations and that the president was acting in accordance with constitutional rules to protect the budget’s broader balance.
The president later announced an immediate project to preserve teacher pay increases, stating that the budget would be adjusted to accommodate such raises. Supporters highlighted that this aligns with electoral commitments and the need to maintain a stable public education workforce.
During the campaign, opponents had discussed suspending TVP funding. After public hostility toward the media organization, supporters say funds were restored within the budget to support public messaging. The debate continues over how to balance media funding with other public priorities and the duties of the state to maintain independent public broadcasting.
Legal references were cited to explain how teacher remuneration is calculated. Officials noted that the average remuneration depends on base amounts set in the Budget Act and that increases would be paid within a defined timeframe after budget adoption, with retroactive compensation possible from January 1. These details emphasize how the budget law shapes actual pay rises for teachers and other staff.
The budget law also included adjustments to the remuneration framework, including an increase of 2.308% for novice teachers, reflecting a commitment to raise pay alongside other changes. These adjustments were designed to provide room for further corrections and compensation during the following year.
Ruling party figures pushed back against what they called misinformation, insisting that the president had publicly stated his plan to submit a separate project to the Sejm after Christmas, including provisions for teachers and other planned expenses. The exchange highlighted the ongoing tension between constitutional duties and political messaging.
Source synthesis and party communications remain central to the discussion, with observers urging careful consideration of constitutional provisions and the real impact on teachers and families. The conversation continues as both sides pursue clarity on how the budget and associated policies will unfold in 2025.
Reference: Source commentary reflects statements from party spokespeople and media coverage of the budget dispute.